In this appeal challenging a divorce decree, the High Court noted the appellant had re-married, rendering the appeal infructuous, and dismissed it, reserving liberty for pending maintenance petitions.
Appeal dismissed; liberty reserved for separate petition for maintenance and alimony.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2021
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
M.F.A.No. 5209/2020 (FC)
BETWEEN:
Ms. Namitha.B. Wife of Sidda Veerappa.H, Aged about 35 years, Residing at. No.1341, Beside PTP Compound, T.Narasipura Road, Mysuru – 570 010. … Appellant (By Sri. Abhishek.A, Advocate)
AND:
Mr. Sidda Veerappa.H, Son of Veeraiah, Aged about 40 years, Residing at Jayapura, Police Quarters, Mysuru Taluk, Mysuru.
Presently working at Yelawala Police Station, Mysuru Taluk, Mysuru. … Respondent
2
(By Sri. Dilip Kumar, Advocate )
This appeal is filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, against the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2020 passed in M.C.No.619/2019 on the file of the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, allowing the Petition filed under Section 13(1),(ia),(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
This appeal coming on for Admission this day, NAGARATHNA, J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that subsequent to the judgment and decree passed in M.C.No.619/2019 dated 03.03.2020 passed by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, impugned in this appeal they have re-married.
that in the circumstances, this appeal, which is filed assailing the dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce in M.C.No.619/2019 has been rendered infructuous.
However, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had also filed C.Mis.No.732/2019 under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the
3
same has been dismissed on the very same date. Therefore, liberty may be reserved to the appellant to assail the order of dismissal passed in C.Mis.No.732/2019 in accordance with law.
that since the appellant is married, an appropriate order may be made in this appeal.
4
liberty is also reserved to the appellant to seek permanent alimony/maintenance in accordance with law by filing an independent petition before the appropriate forum.
Parties to bear their respective costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
KTY
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal离婚后 decree against dissolution of marriage is maintainable if the parties subsequently re-married.
Whether liberty should be reserved to recall and assail the order dismissing a maintenance petition filed by the appellant.
Whether liberty should be reserved to seek permanent alimony/maintenance in an independent petition.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ms. Namitha. B.
Mr. Sidda Veerappa. H.
B. V. Nagarathna
N. S. Sanjay Gowda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
